Harry Potter (1-4)

I haven't got the time/drive to write four separate bits especially considering there will be a maximum of three people who actually read them (one of them being myself) and a whole one who really cares, so I'm lumping the first four Potter movies into one short post. I'd like to make the disclaimer that for every movie, made and soon to come, I am not grading on how well they translate every last detail to screen. The movies are, I think, compliments to the books and can be best enjoyed by those who have read them. It's like a brief reminder of a more rich and sensational experience that would take longer to read. As for the lazy people who would rather watch them and not even try the books, they have my pity for they have no idea what they're missing. Anyway, the point is, none of them come close to matching the books, but I grade them as they are; movies that try to tell the stories in spirit if not always in letter.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
The first movie in the series is its weakest, and the charm is continually lessening. However, Rowling's fantastic vision is translated in the visuals if not completely through the performances of th multiple young actors. I like this movie a lot, but there's no denying that the special effects are not state of the art anymore, and as hard as they try the three leads especially have not quite filled the demanding roles. From the get go, though, they look the parts almost perfectly (the only exception being that Harry's hair, perpetually untidy in the novels, lays flat most of the time here). When I read the books I imagine some characters differently than their on screen counterparts, but not the Harry, Ron, or Hermione, although I have a great deal more affection for the literary trio than I do for the cinematic one. All in all it's worth seeing, but it is cheesy and as stated before, it's no comparison to the remarkable source material.
B


Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
The charm that comes with seeing it all for the first time is gone here, so it's lost a little magic, no pun intended. However, it's been replaced with a darker story and a cast that is improving. The trio are passable, the script is occasionally sketchy, and the special effects, while better than the first, are still presented in a bit of a kiddy-theme-park style. One such effect is the phoenix Fawkes, which is presented like a plumpish peacock here, though in later installments I would have preferred a more dnagerous looking hawk or eagle style bird, and with more vibrant colors. It's superior to the first film, that much is sure, but like I said before, the first had that novelty and with that gone it's only a little bit better. I sound like I'm not all for it and that's not true. I have a special place in my heart for this book in the series, (though I couldn't really tell you why) and I think this one does a fairly good job of translating it to screen.
B+


Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Though I enjoyed the first two Potter movies, this is the first one I loved, and it remained my favorite for three years, even after number four. The key to its success is the fact that a new director, Alfonso Cauron, came on board and completely reworked the cinematic world of Harry Potter. He didn't change the actors, but the grounds of Hogwarts seem to have changed and expanded, and every shot no longer looks like it's been dipped in greenish-yellow candy coating. Things like the presence of the Dementors in this the third installment brings a whole new level of darkness to the series, as much as that might annoy the few people who for some unknown reason want to keep Harry at age 11 for seven years, and for once the film almost captures that incredible feeling you get when you're reading one of the books. The last 45 minutes, especially, are a work of cinematic excellence apart from the fact that they are a brilliant adaptation of one of the series' most exhilarating sequences. Another thing about this movie, something that was lost in number four, is the fact that someone seems to have given time and thought to the cinematography. A series as brilliant as Harry Potter deserves, I think and I doubt you'll disagree, artistic vision to at least attempt to do it justice on the screen. Anyone who's read the books knows that page after page is filled with the sort of inventive fictional stuff that, done right, could be wondrous to behold. The scene that gets me every time is the one in which Harry and Sirius are attacked by the Dementors at the lake. While Chris Columbus might merely have pointed a camera and said "go," Cauron has filmed a beautiful and hair raising scene of awesome cinema (I think) that even surpasses the way I envisioned it while reading (a rarity for these movies). Lastly it is worth noting that the kids here make leaps and bounds when it comes to their acting abilities. They aren't incredible or anything, but you can watch it and actually believe them in their roles. I held my breath after watching this movie (figuratively of course) because it was at the time the only great one in the series. Were more to come, or would we slip back into the days of "good but not great?"
A


Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
This was the first Potter to be rated PG-13, and having read the books I can safely say that there's no going back. Prisoner of Azkaban was not strictly a kids movie, as the first two were, and it is still superior to this film, but Goblet of Fire is definitely more adult and that is certainly a good thing. The acting skills of the kids seem to hold over from the last film, with the exception of Emma Watson, playing Hermione Granger, who seems to have concentrated all her abilities into her eyebrows which rise and fall dramatically with each breathy line. I'm being mean. She's not awful. However, she seemed to be more on her game in the last one, and as much as she looks the part, she's still got to work on her performance. Hermione is arguably my favorite character in the books so I'm bound to be especially critical her the film version. That said, this movie is still a great one, though it has the sad task of condensing Rowling's first mammoth sized novel. Every loss in the adaptation process is felt regrettably by fans of the books, but the main story is intact and is briskly moved along. I haven't mentioned the adult performances in these movies as of yet, but it should be noted that Alan Rickman, as Professor Snape, is seriously incomparable in this, and all of the Potter movies. Also brilliant, though criminally underused, is Miranda Richardson as the tabloid journalist from hell, Rita Skeeter. There are not as many moments of brilliance in this film as there were in the last, but the one that was most important they nailed; the graveyard duel at the end. I cannot describe to you what I felt when I first read this finale in the book. From the resurrection of Harry's longtime nemesis Lord Voldemort (theatrically embodied by Ralph Fiennes), to the unexpected result of their duel, right down to Harry seeing the ghosts of his parents and recently deceased friend, this is another of my most favorite sequences in the series. Really though, think about it. He's a 14 year old boy, being tortured and jeered by what are essentially wizard Nazis, and he's told quite plainly that he's going to be murdered on the spot. The staple of fantasy literature is that the authors are always throwing in last minute information right before it's going to matter. However here, and really throughout all of Rowling's seven part epic, Harry manages to escape by means of previously learned skills and provided aids that we could never have guessed would play such crucial roles. I kid you not, and I know it sounds lame, but I wanted to stand up and cheer after I read this part of the book. Harry is a grand hero because we read his story and we don't just want to be as brave and heroic as him, we honestly tell ourselves that we could be in the same situation. After I saw this movie I thought two things right off the bat. First of all I thought, "Awesome, but not as good as Prisoner of Azkaban, though that's a pretty tall order after all." And second I thought "We've had two OK ones and two great ones, I guess we'll have to wait and see what the majority is."
A-

Transformers

If you've read a thing I've written in the past four months, or had even a hiccup of a movie-themed conversation with me in that time, chances are you probably know that I was against this movie from the get go. Turns out... I was absolutely right! I don't really care that it made $150+ million in it's first five days, nor do I want to hear that I couldn't possibly understand the phenomenon, having not grown up with the toys. The fact of the matter is I sat in the theater for two and a half hours not for a second being anything less than excruciatingly aware that I was watching an awful movie. I'll make some lists now, for that is a good idea from time to time.


Positives (these are the only things pulling this trash up from a big fat F)

• Shia LaBeouf is becoming a terrific actor. He was great in Holes, and more recently in Disturbia and Surf's Up. Despite his goody two shoes pedigreee of such Disney Channel offerings as Even Stevens and made for TV movies, he is amusing to watch and he seems to really try in his roles, with great success I think. If this movie had had even more of him it would only have improved it, but even as the lead he was cut off too often by other boring one dimensional characters.
• The special effects are incredible. That goes without saying for almost all summer blockbusters, but I'll say it anyway. They only really had one effect to display, and that was (no brainer) the transforming robots. It lost its "wow" factor after the first 67 times, but for some reason two days after seeing the movie I suddenly had a craving to see every vehicle around me transform. Alas, there were no combines or swathers as transformers, perhaps in the dreadfully inevitable sequel.

Negatives

• The movie is based on toys. Need I say more? It seems so. I don't care that the Decepticons and Autobots had their whole little story invented to grace the cardboard packaging of the nonsensical toys, the fact remains that this whole thing is invented to support the idea of a toy that can be, in one position, vehicle, and, in the other, a large robot. The movie is a commercial, nothing more. It's a successful one, for I went out to buy a transformer a few days after because I wanted to see if I could recreate the whirring and shifting gears of the movie's transformation sequences. (I feel as though I'm a junkie and transforming is my crack, er, fix, whatever).
• John Voight. He plays... John Voight. No, scratch that. He plays John Voight in a Michael Bay movie. which brings me to my next bullet point.
• Michael Bay. This is a Michael Bay movie. He knows it too. But he thinks this is a good thing. 'This is a hundred times cooler than Armageddon!' says one extra in the movie as the aliens crash land on earth (before taking their forms as every up and coming car in the GM catalogue). He actually thinks he's earned the right to be self-referential. I think he's spent too many hours in front of a computer whipping up the predictable explosions we are pummeled with start to finish. He isn't a screen legend, he's a hit and miss product of every bad influence Holly wood can have on a filmmaker, and I hesitate to even call him that. This isn't a film, it's a stunt.
• The dialogue is painful from "In the beginning there was the cube" to "I'm not leaving without Bumblebee!" breathily announced by the mercifully gorgeous Megan Fox (five minutes in I was desperate for any small enjoyment, even if it is the horribly objectifying observation of little-miss-easy-on-the-eyes. Hey, the rest of the leads are made of plastic, right? No one gets mad about people eyeballing them) What is an already poorly written script is only made worse by every form of botched accent you can imagine at one point or another.
• Peeing jokes!? I could have gone my whole life without watching a robot pee on someone, or was it the dog, I don't remember. The point is, all the humor that wasn't specifically under the watchful eye of Shia was lame at best.

There were even more little here and there annoying things that added up to one rotten movie, but the point is, I think, made. This is the worst kind of movie. It doesn't just maul our screens nation wide; it is actually and adamantly consumed by a public that ought to demand better, even in their summer entertainment! When we pay a ton of good money to see crap like this we encourage the studios to make more garbage and we dig the grave in which we will soon lay American cinema to rest. I'm as guilty as the next guy; I went and saw it too, at the ridiculous student price of $8.00. That money is no longer burning a hole in my pocket, it's burning a scar into my conscience! We've got an 18 screen cinema about twenty minutes from home, if I'm behind the wheel that is, and with so many screens you'd think we'd have a nice choice of good movies, right? Right. WRONG! They're so busy filling six screens with this summer blockbuster, and three and two more with this one and that one, that before you know if you've got the same selection as the smaller theaters, except you've got more showtimes. I had to drive forty minutes, not to mention in a nice loopy trail through the hellish streets of Portland to get to a theater where they were showing "Once," a charming and excellently made small movie about Irish musicians. I paid $8.50 to park in a garage, not to mention $5.00 for a drink at the concession counter. Add in, of course, the $7.00 price of the ticket itself, and you're looking at $20.50. Why, may you ask, is seeing a truly worthwhile movie a $20.00 venture that eats up half of a day? Ladies and gentlemen, as answer to my own question, I give you Transformers. Michale Bay ought to be ashamed of himself, making a movie this ridiculous (what's next, a Polly Pocket movie?). Producers ought to be ashamed of themselves, backing such a feeble product. It turns out Steven Spielberg can do wrong when it comes to movies. Theater owners ought to be ashamed of themselves, running this drivel when so many superior offerings exist. But most of all, and hate me if you want, we the audiences ought to be ashamed of ourselves, for paying attention to this junk. Yes, if you saw it you ought to be ashamed of yourself. I ought to be ashamed of myself as well... don't worry, I am.

D+

Ratatouille

After ten years of making reliably excellent movies it comes as no surprise to me that Pixar's latest movie is a fantastic one. The story is about a rat and a garbage boy, both of whom dream of being chefs, who work together to realize their mutual dream. The animation is top of the line, as is expected, and the story that seems a little unremarkable at first becomes an involving and heartfelt one thanks to the plethora of unique characters and sincerity on the part of the filmmaker. What surprised me most about this one, what set it apart from its fellow Pixar movies, is that for the first time the kids seemed to be the secondary audience. I think that if I'd watched this at five or six years old, besides being a little frightened by a handful of fairly exhilarating scenes, I would have been a little bored. The humor is more often subtle than overt, and the story isn't one that would resonate very well, I think, with younger audiences. It's not that kids won't enjoy it, I just think that there's no way they are getting everything out of it that was put in. Pixar is long past having to prove themselves, but if they needed to this would do the job. It puts movies like Shrek the Third to sad shame, and it reminds us that it's not to much to ask for a few excellent movies during the summer. As far as Pixar movies go, this one is second only to the Toy Story pair and The Incredibles. Their are a couple awkward moments as the always far-fetched idea of humans and animals interacting excessively is forced to join up with the realistic setting of the chefs and their fine French restaurant. However these awkward moments are slight and rare, not to mention completely overshadowed by the film's many other admirable qualities. This gets my vote for Best Animated movie, and having seen most of the others out this year I'd say it has a good chance at winning. I'm not even kidding when I say thank God for movies like this, it's a call to action for the lazy movie makers who give us trash just because a studio will back them and they can get away with it. A movie can be big and extravagant and also excellent and original at the same time. If you don't believe me, go see Ratatouille.

A-

Paris, Je T'aime (Paris, I Love You)

This movie is a collection of sixteen shorts, averaging about five minutes a piece, depicting different scenes or stories concerning love in the city of lights. It sounds a bit like Love Actually, but while that movie (like most other montage films) tells a number of complete stories each with its own plot arc and all that, Paris, Je T'aime tends to stick with a single scene, at the start, middle, or end of a story. They are little more than snap shots, and each has its own style thanks to the individual directors of each. THe only thing more impressive than the list of directors (which includes the likes of Gus Van Sant, Alfonso Cauron, Wes Craven, and Alexander Payne) is the expansive cast ranging from the always breathtaking Natalie Portman to a wonderful Gena Rowlands. A coupel of the vignettes were misses, but the majority are heartfelt little scenes that inspire viewers to consider love, whether it be between a man and a woman, a parent and a child, or two vampires (one of my personal favorites though far from the norm so don't think they're all so outlandish). It's playing practically nowhere, so recommending it be seen in theaters is almost nonsensical, but Paris looks particularly beautiful up close, so if you can find it on a big screen I strongly encourage you to see it. It is both happy and sad in equal measures but that's life I suppose, and I guess they're telling us that's love as well.

B+

Surf's Up

I've fallen WAY behind with summer movies, so these will be short and to the point, hopefully. Surf's Up was pretty much awesome. Not only was it vasty superior to Happy Feet, the other recent animated penguin movie, but it was perhaps even better than the godfather of penguin movies. March of the Penguins. Obviously it wasn't as impressive as seeing all the real life penguins waddle around all winter and raise their young and so forth, but watching them surf is cooler than watching real surfers. The story, while a bit cliché, is not heavy handed and the voice talents work wonders both by themselves and especially in scenes of dialogue which were recorded with multiple actors in the sound booths, contrary to traditional animated movies. The sound isn't the only feature of the movie made in a non-traditional process, but for that information you'll have to read up on wikipedia, or more reliably just listen to a directors commentary later down the road. The story focuses on Cody Maverick, an up and coming surfer, who (of course) learns that a real athlete loves the sport not the win. The supporting characters are all hilarious and the dry dead pan humor, similar to that found in the office, is so offhanded that you could easily miss it. Too bad if you do, because most of it is comic gold, but not to worry the DVD will be out soon and you can watch it, as I certainly will, again and again.

B+